Stecyk

NYC Ballet considers social media guidelines

85 posts in this topic

NYC Ballet considers social media guidelines

(excerpt)

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City Ballet wants to develop social media guidelines for all its artistic and administrative employees.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the company is negotiating a social media policy as part of contract negotiations with the dancer's union, the American Guild of Musical Artists.

Article should be available without subscription as it points to the following site:

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/nyc-ballet-considers-social-media-guidelines/70010ea4cb93436f9ff52c91832f0c5f

If unavailable, use your favorite search engine for NYC Ballet Social Media.

Edit: Moderators, this is likely in the wrong section. Feel free to move to "links."

Edited by Stecyk

Share this post


Link to post

The Wall Street Journal reported that

According to a draft of the policy obtained by the Journal, dancers would be banned from disclosing another dancer's injury or illness and be required to specify their comments aren't company sanctioned.

The story was picked up in today's Daily Mail, which reported

Now ballet bosses have drafted a contract which allows them to monitor all posts on Twitter and other social networking websites by company members to check that nobody is causing offence.

Members of the corps will also be banned from taking pictures of other cast members without their permission.

The draconian rules would bring it into line with a string of major companies which have taken action to stop staff causing embarrassment through their use of social media.

The main focus of the story was the sensationalist report on corps member Devin Alberda's recent Tweets which made fun of Peter Martins' DUI and either Justin Bieber or Martins' "Magic Flute" and "branded an Asian character in a production as a crude stereotype. I don't understand the Bieber reference and whether it's related to his Tweet that "Yellowface character in NYCB's 2010 revival of The Magic Flute the worst thing to happen to the Asian American community since EO 9066".

He clearly knew it would either be seen by or passed on to The Powers That Be at NYCB -- he used the "dontfireme" tag -- but the virtual wall that's assumed in social media between the very public public and the very public private is so very alien to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I think Alberda is right to question the Chinese stereotyped character in MF. In fact, there are a lot of politically incorrect and offensive portrayals in ballet (and opera too). The Tea and Coffee sections of Nutcracker are particularly noteworthy for being offensive, in my opinion. I suspect that political incorrectness might also explain the absence of Raymonda from ABT's rep for many, many years. Why would NYCB want to censor Alberda's comments? Moreover, I don't think it would be legal for NYCB to censor Twitter comments, including the negative comments about Peter Martins. Seems like NYCB wants to be on the cutting edge by using social media, but doesn't want to accept the bad with the good. Alberda must have figured out by now that making negative comments about his employer on a publicly available Twitter account is not going to help his career.

I read the Wall Street Journal column and learned that there is a Fake Peter Martins twitter account, as well as a Fake Kevin McKenzie account. Some people have a lot of extra time on their hands, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Why would NYCB want to censor Alberda's comments? Moreover, I don't think it would be legal for NYCB to censor Twitter comments, including the negative comments about Peter Martins. Seems like NYCB wants to be on the cutting edge by using social media, but doesn't want to accept the bad with the good. Alberda must have figured out by now that making negative comments about his employer on a publicly available Twitter account is not going to help his career.

Employers can and do restrict what employees do and say on their personal time.

They are not censoring a dancer. The dancer's right to free speech is still available, just not as a dancer working for that company. In other words, the company won't prohibit a dancer from voicing his or her opinion. But the company will prohibit employing a dancer who is making disparaging remarks or perceived to be harming the company. This practice is quite common for most traditional companies where employees sit in a cubicle all day long.

At many companies, employees are prohibited from talking to the press. That's the role of public relations companies.

And if you consider sports, look at what happens to Mark Cuban when he speaks his mind.

Going back to restrictions in the article, they don't seem overly onerous.

The Wall Street Journal reported that

According to a draft of the policy obtained by the Journal, dancers would be banned from disclosing another dancer's injury or illness and be required to specify their comments aren't company sanctioned.

Those rules seem fair.

With regard to Alberda learning that his actions are not going to help his career, it's a painful lesson to learn. Not only has he harmed his career with his current company, but he has also harmed his potential career with others. Others will usually shy away from controversial people, for they consume too much scarce energy.

One of the disadvantages of being on a team--whether in a traditional corporation, a sports franchise, or a ballet company--is that you sometimes have to suppress your opinions. When you fly solo, you are free to speak your mind.

Share this post


Link to post

This is an interesting article from the NY Times on the topic at issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html

Indeed it is. There are a few excerpts that caught my attention.

Company Accused of Firing Over Facebook Post

That act gives workers a federally protected right to form unions, and it prohibits employers from punishing workers — whether union or nonunion — for discussing working conditions or unionization. The labor board said the company’s Facebook rule was “overly broad” and improperly limited employees’ rights to discuss working conditions among themselves.

Working conditions or unionization are allowed.

An administrative law judge is scheduled to begin hearing the case on Jan. 25. Marshall B. Babson, a member of the National Labor Relations Board in the 1980s, said a broad company rule that says one cannot make disparaging comments about supervisors is clearly illegal under labor law. But he said an employee’s criticizing a company or supervisor on Facebook was not necessarily protected activity.
[emphasis added]
But employees might cross the line into unprotected territory if they disparage supervisors over something unrelated to work — for instance, a supervisor’s sexual performance — or if their statements are disloyal.

Drinking after-hours is unrelated to work.

I'd still err on the side of caution. This article seems to suggest that law is somewhat murky. I know many companies, however, have restrictive policies. Some even fire employees if they discuss their wages. And according to this article, you are allowed to discuss wages.

Share this post


Link to post

I kind of get the feeling Alberda doesn't much care about his career, or if not "not care" has come to terms that at 24/25 promotion to soloist isn't really going to happen, certainly never principal.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the blog link... easier for us non-tweeters to get to than tweets.... Nice to be able read enough of his thoughts that he becomes more than just a name in an article. Now, if we could just get him to stop riding the homeless people...

Share this post


Link to post

I read his blog post. Although I found it interesting, I also found that I disagreed with some of his comments.

I Can Tweet Bad All By Myself by Devin Alberda

I’ve never revealed proprietary information or tweeted about another dancer's injury. I recognize the need to protect the company’s interests as well as its employees, but a restrictive online social networking policy would limit the access dancers would be able to allow the public to their professional lives.

Protecting the company's interests is certainly a subjective criteria. Indeed, many would simply apply the rule our mothers' taught us, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Others might be more liberal as to what is acceptable or permissible. Me, I'd probably ask myself: Does this tweet or blog entry further the goals or aspirations of the company?

I’m not a star, I don’t go on gigs, nor do I have a public image to maintain. I revel in irreverence, and yes, perhaps making a joke about my boss’ DWI arrest is pushing it.

So which is it? Is it protecting the company's interests or pushing it too far?

Of course starting a thoughtful conversation on Twitter is difficult, all the more so with my own hyperbolic tendencies.

But if you always protecting the company's interests, then hyperbolic tendencies ought not matter.

I don’t think anyone should be worried about my Twitter feed. I definitely consider the ramifications of certain comments, but Sandra Bernhard and Richard Pryor are two of my personal heroes and as a result I may locate the line separating tastefulness and distastefulness a little differently than many people in the dance world do.

Of course, there's a difference between Sandra Bernhard and Richard Pryor and Devin Alberda. The former were soloists, free to capture the imagination or scorn of their fans without repercussion to others on the team. The latter is a part of a larger and more important whole. What he does might influence how others perceive not only him but his company as well.

I am not offended by Alberda's comments. However, if I were part of his company, I am not so sure I would be as neutral. Especially in these challenging economic times, I would want everyone doing their reasoanable best to make the company better. As with any organization, there will always be something, something negative or unpleasant that needs to be addressed. Those issues, regardless of whether they are in the public domain, are likely better addressed behind closed doors where frank, honest, and hard discussions can take place without adding further injury to the company.

Share this post


Link to post

Without actual language in place, I feel that it is somewhat less than useful for anyone, whether Alberda or us, to comment on company policy with regard to social networking. The appropriate forum for that is the AGMA negotiation with NYCB over their General Contract. It's sounding like a cry to mount the barricades only to find that a proposed measure is intended to prevent jaywalking.

Share this post


Link to post

Without actual language in place, I feel that it is somewhat less than useful for anyone, whether Alberda or us, to comment on company policy with regard to social networking. The appropriate forum for that is the AGMA negotiation with NYCB over their General Contract. It's sounding like a cry to mount the barricades only to find that a proposed measure is intended to prevent jaywalking.

I have to agree with Mel, I can't quite see why everyone's getting their knickers in a twist here. Alberda's comments have nothing to do with the imposed restrictions. In fact a lot of his tweets don't actually make that much sense, he's not quite as clever as the wit he's straining after and he relys too much on big words to give weight to very little meaning. The Koch/soap dish tweet being a case in point.

I think this is more to do with NYCB protecting its wealthy sponsors than fear of the media and public at large who, let's face it, don't really care about ballet or the internecine politics of ballet companies. (Unless it's Natalie Portman stabbing herself in the abdomen before going out into Swan Lake Act 3. But then again now that she's won her Oscar it's old news.)

Share this post


Link to post

Without actual language in place, I feel that it is somewhat less than useful for anyone, whether Alberda or us, to comment on company policy with regard to social networking. The appropriate forum for that is the AGMA negotiation with NYCB over their General Contract. It's sounding like a cry to mount the barricades only to find that a proposed measure is intended to prevent jaywalking.

In fact a lot of his tweets don't actually make that much sense, he's not quite as clever as the wit he's straining after and he relys too much on big words to give weight to very little meaning. The Koch/soap dish tweet being a case in point.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/15/article-1366525-0B307C7900000578-755_468x222.jpg

Which big word are you struggling with? Sabotage? Paranoia? Dispenser?

Share this post


Link to post

Without actual language in place, I feel that it is somewhat less than useful for anyone, whether Alberda or us, to comment on company policy with regard to social networking. The appropriate forum for that is the AGMA negotiation with NYCB over their General Contract. It's sounding like a cry to mount the barricades only to find that a proposed measure is intended to prevent jaywalking.

In fact a lot of his tweets don't actually make that much sense, he's not quite as clever as the wit he's straining after and he relys too much on big words to give weight to very little meaning. The Koch/soap dish tweet being a case in point.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/15/article-1366525-0B307C7900000578-755_468x222.jpg

Which big word are you struggling with? Sabotage? Paranoia? Dispenser?

Yes. Along with patronise, sanctimonious and tedious.

Share this post


Link to post

Without actual language in place, I feel that it is somewhat less than useful for anyone, whether Alberda or us, to comment on company policy with regard to social networking. The appropriate forum for that is the AGMA negotiation with NYCB over their General Contract. It's sounding like a cry to mount the barricades only to find that a proposed measure is intended to prevent jaywalking.

I have to agree with Mel, I can't quite see why everyone's getting their knickers in a twist here. Alberda's comments have nothing to do with the imposed restrictions. In fact a lot of his tweets don't actually make that much sense, he's not quite as clever as the wit he's straining after and he relys too much on big words to give weight to very little meaning. The Koch/soap dish tweet being a case in point.

I think this is more to do with NYCB protecting its wealthy sponsors than fear of the media and public at large who, let's face it, don't really care about ballet or the internecine politics of ballet companies. (Unless it's Natalie Portman stabbing herself in the abdomen before going out into Swan Lake Act 3. But then again now that she's won her Oscar it's old news.)

Agree with both of these posts. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how I feel about the proposed policy. I don't see the correlation between Albreda's tweets and the proposed policy (ban against comments on other dancers' injuries, etc). Sure, Albreda's tweets may cause some embarrassment for NYCB, but I think your director getting arrested for DWI is probably embarrassing already. It's not that Albreda is making crazy, wild claims on his Twitter feed.

I don't have any major problems with the proposed policy - it is somewhat limited in scope, though does the ban still count if one NYCB employee takes a photo of another employee, without his/her permission, but they are both out in public? Or is the ban only limited to NYCB studios/theater and events? And the whole idea of NYCB having the authority to "police" or monitor their employees activities on social media sites just sounds wrong. Sure, the dancers/employees are posting on public (assuming the hypothetical Facebook profiles are not set to private) and it's their choice, but NYCB has the freedom to let people go or not sign them on for the next season (I'm assuming; not too familiar with union contracts). They don't need a policy to theoretically grant them the authority to do so.

In pro sports, I believe most of the leagues have certain restrictions regarding comments made by players/coaches/owners. You criticize the refereeing in an NBA game, you get slapped with a $25K fine. However, those situations are somewhat different - if you question a ref, you are questioning the integrity of the game and alluding to cheating. From a business standpoint, the leagues could stand to lose money (why go see a ballgame when the results are already fixed?). For NYCB, is the potential for a decrease in business a real issue? Only in that donors may not donate. I don't think anything an individual dancer posts or says would have a significant influence on whether audience members continuing going to the ballet.

Share this post


Link to post

Does the prohibition on discussing injuries mean that the dancers cannot advise or notify followers that the cast will change for an upcoming show, thereby alerting readers to come see or avoid commuting to see a specific dancer? I would love to know in advance that certain dancers would appear to replace an injured dancer.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think anything an individual dancer posts or says would have a significant influence on whether audience members continuing going to the ballet.

Without meaning to be mean, do you think what a fashion designer is allegedly to have said while in an inebriated state would affect what fashioniestas wear?

As we have seen, a few misplaced evil comments can ruin a person, his reputation, and his work. Luckily, the team--in this case a company--simply terminated him.

Words combined with media are powerful.

Share this post


Link to post

Does the prohibition on discussing injuries mean that the dancers cannot advise or notify followers that the cast will change for an upcoming show, thereby alerting readers to come see or avoid commuting to see a specific dancer? I would love to know in advance that certain dancers would appear to replace an injured dancer.

My general understanding of similar guidelines is that dancers will be able to discuss their own injury, but not that of others, and will have to wait for casting changes to be made official before disclosing.

Share this post


Link to post

Does the prohibition on discussing injuries mean that the dancers cannot advise or notify followers that the cast will change for an upcoming show, thereby alerting readers to come see or avoid commuting to see a specific dancer? I would love to know in advance that certain dancers would appear to replace an injured dancer.

I daresay it's for precisely this reason that the new guidelines are in place. Where a dancer can pass personal information that will directly impact on attendance and ticket sales - should a dancer's disclosure of third party information harm the company and its financial takings at box office, then that must be a good reason for sacking.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think anything an individual dancer posts or says would have a significant influence on whether audience members continuing going to the ballet.

Without meaning to be mean, do you think what a fashion designer is allegedly to have said while in an inebriated state would affect what fashioniestas wear?

As we have seen, a few misplaced evil comments can ruin a person, his reputation, and his work. Luckily, the team--in this case a company--simply terminated him.

Words combined with media are powerful.

That's not entirely true, they only terminated his contract when the incontravertible video footage came out. Till that point LVMH and Arnault were standing by Galliano, their major star and cash cow, as being the victim of unsubstantiated slander and rumours. Indeed Galliano was launching a libel action against the victims of one his tirades, as there was only witness statements as to what had gone on that first time.

Share this post


Link to post

Does the prohibition on discussing injuries mean that the dancers cannot advise or notify followers that the cast will change for an upcoming show, thereby alerting readers to come see or avoid commuting to see a specific dancer? I would love to know in advance that certain dancers would appear to replace an injured dancer.

I daresay it's for precisely this reason that the new guidelines are in place. Where a dancer can pass personal information that will directly impact on attendance and ticket sales - should a dancer's disclosure of third party information harm the company and its financial takings at box office, then that must be a good reason for sacking.

Simon, Are you suggesting that selling tickets to unsuspecting fans based on misinformation is appropriate, and passing on correct information to prevent misleading the public is good reason for "sacking"? From reading these boards, I have become aware that many audience members carefully select which dancers they wish to see and how they wish to spend their limited funds. Withholding information regarding which dancer will perform, or selling tickets based on promises of one performer when he/she is not available, is fraudulent, even if it financially assists the company.

Share this post


Link to post

Does the prohibition on discussing injuries mean that the dancers cannot advise or notify followers that the cast will change for an upcoming show, thereby alerting readers to come see or avoid commuting to see a specific dancer? I would love to know in advance that certain dancers would appear to replace an injured dancer.

I daresay it's for precisely this reason that the new guidelines are in place. Where a dancer can pass personal information that will directly impact on attendance and ticket sales - should a dancer's disclosure of third party information harm the company and its financial takings at box office, then that must be a good reason for sacking.

Simon, Are you suggesting that selling tickets to unsuspecting fans based on misinformation is appropriate, and passing on correct information to prevent misleading the public is good reason for "sacking"? From reading these boards, I have become aware that many audience members carefully select which dancers they wish to see and how they wish to spend their limited funds. Withholding information regarding which dancer will perform, or selling tickets based on promises of one performer when he/she is not available, is fraudulent, even if it financially assists the company.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. That companies be allowed carte blanche to engage in fraudulent, misleading behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
That's not entirely true, they only terminated his contract when the incontravertible video footage came out. Till that point LVMH and Arnault were standing by Galliano, their major star and cash cow, as being the victim of unsubstantiated slander and rumours. Indeed Galliano was launching a libel action against the victims of one his tirades, as there was only witness statements as to what had gone on that first time.

First, I deliberately made no mention of any specific actors. Given that this stuff might be still be unsettled and before the courts, I'd like to avoid any specific references. Second, if what you say is true, then you have served only to prove my points--that is, words and media combined can be lethal. Without a media recording, it was a he said, she said argument. The comments themselves were still toxic and reprehensible, but in doubt to many. Once the doubt was removed, the damage to all was done. And last, this a minor point, please, if you emphasize part of my quote when quoting me, say so. Otherwise, it appears as though I had emphasized something, when I hadn't.

Share this post


Link to post
That's not entirely true, they only terminated his contract when the incontravertible video footage came out. Till that point LVMH and Arnault were standing by Galliano, their major star and cash cow, as being the victim of unsubstantiated slander and rumours. Indeed Galliano was launching a libel action against the victims of one his tirades, as there was only witness statements as to what had gone on that first time.

First, I deliberately made no mention of any specific actors. Given that this stuff might be still be unsettled and before the courts, I'd like to avoid any specific references. Second, if what you say is true, then you have served only to prove my points--that is, words and media combined can be lethal. Without a media recording, it was a he said, she said argument. The comments themselves were still toxic and reprehensible, but in doubt to many. Once the doubt was removed, the damage to all was done. And last, this a minor point, please, if you emphasize part of my quote when quoting me, say so. Otherwise, it appears as though I had emphasized something, when I hadn't.

I'm sorry but I really don't see your point, and drawing parallels between Alberda & Galliano is a tad specious. Alberda just makes a few silly comments about things which interest him, it only crossed the line when he made a joke about Peter Martins DUI, Galliano (and if it wasn't him who else did you mean, and since the whole affair has been reported at length there's no danger of a class libel action) made comments which in France are illegal regardless of clothes or fashionistas, had Alberda made similar comments on twitter regarding the patrons of NYCB then yes he'd be sacked, and yes it would have a huge impact on the audience of NYCB and wealthy donors many of whom are indeed Jewish. The kick in the funny parts for Christian Dior was Natalie Portman's immediate distancing of herself from Dior, as to whether Galliano's comments would have an impact on his buying demographic, do you honestly think the wealthy Jewish patrons of haute couture would invest in a designer who said their ancestors would be better off gassed or the various captains of industry who do business with Jews want to dress their wives in the clothes of an anti semite?

Portman's immediate actions against her employer kind of signalled the devastating impact Galliano's actions would have on his buying demographic.

AS to the last request (see above emphasising on my part) I'll do my best, but maybe it's time to be a tad less precious, I assumed that anyone reading my response would know it was my emphasising a point I wanted to respond to.

Share this post


Link to post